Long stay doubts

Re: "30-day visa-free stay 'sufficient', says minister", (BP, March 21) & "Thailand reviewing visa-free stays as local complaints pile up" & "Phuket up in arms on long‑stay visa", (BP, March 18).

Regarding the string of articles related to reducing tourist stays, I wonder where the "pile of complaints" is, as stated in the March 18 article.

In the last two articles, you cited Phuket tourism operators who "have been particularly vocal about the downside of the system originally intended to promote tourism".

Has anyone else been consulted? In Chiang Mai and across the North, hotel and tour operators are worried about how war will affect tourism, and generally more concerned about promoting tourism (and investment) than restricting it.

In the earlier article, you do specify who is complaining -- the president of the Phuket Tourism Association -- but that article is about the new Phuket property investment visa, per se. He seems concerned with cracking down on "low-quality tourists" who might invest in local property legally on the new visa, or illegally while staying on any visa. Should this concern be placed on other departments, such as the Ministry of Commerce and the Land Department?

As he was quoted at that time, "Phuket has generally been less successful than cities such as Chiang Mai in attracting long‑stay travellers". So, if he doesn't want long-stay tourists, he can be happy they prefer Chiang Mai, or if he does, maybe he can ask how Chiang Mai manages.

How will chasing away snowbirds, remote/offshore workers, etc, help attract these mythical high-quality tourists who spend a fortune without causing any inflation?

Longstay Unwelcome

Grave parallels

Re: "Trump gives Iran 48 hours on Hormuz", (World, March 23).

Towards the end of World War II, as the reality of defeat set in, Adolf Hitler issued a devastating order: the total destruction of Paris. This directive was handed to Gen Dietrich von Choltitz, whom Hitler had appointed as the military governor of the city just two weeks prior, on Aug 7, 1944.

Hitler specifically selected von Choltitz for his ruthless track record, notably his role in the obliteration of Rotterdam in 1940. The explicit goal was not tactical, but rather the erasure of the cultural and historical heart of the French nation. Landmarks like the Louvre, Notre Dame, and the bridges of the Seine held no strategic military value; their planned destruction was purely an act of civilizational spite.

Fortunately for history, Von Choltitz defied this order and spared the city. Shortly before taking command, he had met with Hitler at his "Wolf's Lair" headquarters. Von Choltitz later recalled being deeply unsettled by Hitler's severe physical deterioration, erratic behaviour, and complete detachment from reality. When the decree came down to turn Paris into a "field of ruins," the general recognised that he was taking orders from a madman whose demands were driven by nihilism rather than military logic.

Today, an eerie resemblance can be seen between those historical events and Donald Trump's conduct in the illegal war against Iran. Much like the decree to level Paris, Trump is threatening to bomb Iran into oblivion by aggressively targeting its lifeblood, including vital infrastructure and the country's oil export facilities at Kharg Island.

This goes beyond conventional warfare; it amounts to an extermination order against one of the world's oldest and most historically significant civilisations: the Persians. It forces us to ask a chilling, fundamental question:

What right does any one man have to inflict such irreversible destruction upon the world?

ML Saksiri Kridakorn

SECTION

Long stay doubts

Grave parallels

SUBMIT YOUR POSTBAG

AD BLOCKER DETECTED